Readers' comments

You've hung out with these people for too long. The fact is that Labour is bust: out of cash and out of ideas. The three stooges are inexorably tied to the failed Brown government. And reform of party funding and constituency boundaries will stop the unions from propping them up and remove the massive pro-Labour bias in the electoral system.

Without Union cash Labour would have gone bust years ago, and could well disintegrate now. Also the in-fighting as their MPs fight for nominations in winnable seats will be fascinating.

The "Real World" does not just refer to the private sector - it refers to having worked for a living (rather than having moved straight from university and into politics). There was a time when many on "the right" knew how to run a business - and many on "the left" had experience of working for one. As I discovered during my (working) summer breaks when at college the political debate that takes place in a worker's canteen is a far cry from the one that takes place in the student's union. So quite how these well larded politicians who have never done a proper day's work in their lives can be allowed to get away with it beats me. And has the professionalisation of politics really delivered better government? Seriously?

To JDub41My advice to you is that you invest in a decent dictionary (not Websters) and spend a few hours improving your understanding of English.
Unfortunately I will also have to spend some time in the same way, as I also found it difficult to decipher the meaning,
And I don’t labour under your problem of not having English as my first language

It would be nice if Diane Abbott were to be elected leader of the Labour Party, In my view it would Make Labour unelectable for the duration of her incumbency, in much the same way Foot and Ben made them unelectable in the late 70,s and 80,s,
I remember well the feeling that Ben was a Tory plant with the brief to make the far left seem ridicules, the only way Labour was able to become elect able was to become
more like the Tory,s a job Blair did very well but the whole facade fell apart when the left wing liar Brown took over, LONG LIVE THE Labour left

I've been reading The Economist for five or six years now, but I have not a clue what the first paragraph of this article is trying to say. Is it English? Translate, please, for this illiterate American.

I would be pleased to hear which PM or major cabinet member in the last 300 years was not a professional insider politician. Its a job, like any other, and those that get in early generally have the best chance of percolating to the top.

I agree with king of bats, it's quite wrong to dismiss Abbott as an insignificant distraction. She may not be prime ministerial, or even party leadership, material, but she does have three things that are very much in her favour:

1. As a rebellious backbencher, she isn't associated with the last 13 years of New Labour which still remains unpopular with core left-wing supporters.
2. She has good public speaking skills and a high media profile. She also has the novelty of being the first black woman to run for the Labour leadership which will keep her in the headlines.
3. She has a long contest ahead of her. As implausible as it might seem now of Abbott becoming leader, she could quite well impress two-third of the electoral college that are far more left-wing than the parliamentary Labour party and by September be viewed in a completely different light.

Admittedly, it is unlikely that Abbott will win. But The Economist, and the other leadership contenders, underestimate her at their peril. Her presence in the contest at very least will force the other contenders to shift more to the left than they would have liked. Abbott's stance on trident in a party that once had nuclear disarmament as a core manifesto pledge is already causing headaches for the other contenders.

I've been reading The Economist for five or six years now, but I have not a clue what the first paragraph of this article is trying to say. Is it English? Translate, please, for this illiterate American.

The Labor Parties traditional policy of spreading the gravy around worked during old Labor days and New Labor days (through the Thacherite policies of Blair). But now the financial sector of the economy is in a shambles. It has to be reigned in to open up capital for the investment sector of the economy, rather than produce virtual wealth and massive debt in the private sector. This is where Cameron is wrong. Cuts, cuts, cuts will weaken the consumer markets, and increase unemployment. It definitely will not promote entrepreneurial activity. So Labor should go for David, a centrist who will chose where to cut and where to spend very carefully, promoting investment and jobs and consumerism.

Without any form of prejudice I suspect that you have neither have you attended a public school in England nor are you an acadmeic . This may possibly mean that you have not appreciated the humour (humor) that the writer intended in his openning paragraph whereby the meaning was penetrated through a thick layer of very dense honey. Sort of insider slng, don't you know. Don't worry of you don't appreciate it .... neither do 80% of English speakers.